NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Fons Baerken on January 11, 2026, 09:08:59
-
AF-D Autofocus on Nikon Z?! Did This Just Save Nikon’s Legacy Lenses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcYWY7hkCm8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcYWY7hkCm8)
-
AF-D Autofocus on Nikon Z?! Did This Just Save Nikon’s Legacy Lenses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcYWY7hkCm8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcYWY7hkCm8)
Thanks for sharing
-
Time to get some cheap AFD lenses before the prices goes up? :-)
-
Thanks Fons for posting.
In reading the comments following the YouTube presentation in your link, it would seem that the Monster Adapter may have a long way to go before it provides a complete solution for AF-D lens users. Time will tell.
AF-D Autofocus on Nikon Z?! Did This Just Save Nikon’s Legacy Lenses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcYWY7hkCm8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcYWY7hkCm8)
-
Yes, I already noticed it but also wait till it's fully developed.
The AF-D 50/1.4, 135DC, 200/4 and 70-180micro see now mainly use on F camera's.
-
From the Monster website: "The current firmware does NOT include autofocus support for AF-I, AF-S, and AF-P lenses, nor support of EMD electromagnetic aperture and lens VR. Please pay attention to future firmware update notifications, but we do not guarantee that all these features above will be supported."
So this adapter is and may always be an adapter for AF-D lenses only (and manual focus, but for that it has no advantage over the FTZ).
It is also interesting to look at the (IMO) not at all convincing reasons they give for why people who want to use AF-D lenses should buy an adapter to use them on a Z camera, instead of just continuing to use them on the dSLR or the film camera they have always used.
-
It is also interesting to look at the (IMO) not at all convincing reasons they give for why people who want to use AF-D lenses should buy an adapter to use them on a Z camera, instead of just continuing to use them on the dSLR or the film camera they have always used.
Perhaps the main reason is that a number of F-lenses perform better on a mirrorless camera. (less disadvantages, sharper, better focussing)
-
I definitively wouldn't bother with any adapter F->Z to employ the "AF" capability of either Micro-Zoom-Nikkor 70-180 AFD or Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 AFD. This is because their autofocusing performance on the native F systems already was abysmal. Furthermore, since both lenses share the infamous breakage-prone AF-M ring, it's better to tape down the ring to make these lenses manual focus only.
-
Perhaps the main reason is that a number of F-lenses perform better on a mirrorless camera. (less disadvantages, sharper, better focussing)
Perform better than they did on F mount or better than native Z lenses? All cameras are mirrorless when the picture is taken, so mirrorless-ness doesn't change the performance of the lens, and the optical penalties of retrofocus designs apply to any lens with focal length less than 50mm, so I am sceptical of any claim that an F mount lens 50mm or shorter is better on a Z mount camera and even more sceptical of any claim that it is better than a Z mount lens of the same focal length.
Sure, some Z cameras have better AF, for some uses, than some F mount cameras. If you add up serial numbers on Roland Vink's site you can see that AF-D lenses outnumber AF-S lenses at short and medium focal lengths, but at longer focal lengths AF-S greatly outnumbers AF-D. That probably has to do with the fact that AF-S was introduced for long focal lengths in 1998, but not for short focal lengths until 2010. The superior AF of Z cameras is of most use with long focal lengths, and there are just not that many AF-D long focal length lenses out there.
The reason people give for wanting an FTZ adapter with screw drive is not that they have all these AF-D lenses that were OK on F mount but are or they hope might be better on Z mount. They want to use them because they really like the way they performed on F mount cameras. So, even if the lens was better on a Z mount camera, why would they care?
Fashion in lens design has changed, so portrait lenses like the 85mm f/1.4D with under-corrected spherical aberration have been replaced by lenses like the Z 135mm f/1.8 with no spherical aberration and some people like the less sharp but "creamy" out of focus look. So there are people who want to keep using the 85/1.4D, typically for portraits. Fine, but why do they need a FTZ adapter with screw drive? The only reason is because they can't use manual focus or they can't use a D850 like they always did.
Nikon has provided a solution for people who want to use AF-D lenses and have AF that is perfectly adequate from a photographic point of view: use them on an F mount camera. Some people may find that inconvenient, and there are people who want to use the 85/1.4D and they dropped their D850 overboard on a Rhine River cruise and since they were buying a new camera it made sense to move to a Z8, and there are people who mainly use a Z8 for sports and sold their D850 to pay for the Z8 but they have a 20/2.8D they use occasionally and they can't afford to buy the Z 20/1.8. Nikon has implied that they just do not see that as a big enough problem to justify making an FTZ adapter with screw drive, and IMO it is very hard to disagree.
-
This adapter is apparently really unreliable. They sold it for a brief moment. The reviews on Taobao were horrible. It was called an expensive prototype.
-
More on adapters, the Monster adapter is reviewed around the 18 minutes mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbffGSMIR-Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbffGSMIR-Q)
-
I definitively wouldn't bother with any adapter F->Z to employ the "AF" capability of either Micro-Zoom-Nikkor 70-180 AFD or Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 AFD. This is because their autofocusing performance on the native F systems already was abysmal. Furthermore, since both lenses share the infamous breakage-prone AF-M ring, it's better to tape down the ring to make these lenses manual focus only.
Following your advice some years ago i taped this ring to strengthen it against breaking but I still can switch - which I rarely do but there are certain situation I like to use AF even when it is slow as screwdriver AF is
(BTW the AF-S 600/4 G VR uses a ring instead of the usual switch for VR on/off and this ring has a similar plastic and not too trustworthy feeling)
-
Nikon has provided a solution for people who want to use AF-D lenses and have AF that is perfectly adequate from a photographic point of view: use them on an F mount camera. Some people may find that inconvenient, and there are people who want to use the 85/1.4D and they dropped their D850 overboard on a Rhine River cruise and since they were buying a new camera it made sense to move to a Z8, and there are people who mainly use a Z8 for sports and sold their D850 to pay for the Z8 but they have a 20/2.8D they use occasionally and they can't afford to buy the Z 20/1.8. Nikon has implied that they just do not see that as a big enough problem to justify making an FTZ adapter with screw drive, and IMO it is very hard to disagree.
I disagree. Buying photography gear is by no means a purely rational decision but rather a lot of psychology -including what is the best system, does Nikon provide a good trustworthy relationship in supporting their customers and such like. Nikonhas always claimed a high level of compatibility for keeping their community in mood and fulfilled that to some extent but on the other hand limited compatibility on purpose because they wanted to sell new gear, namedly lenses. And of course Nikon wants to sell lots of new Z-lenses and on the other hand was offering a new system where it is not guaranteed that the switch is made to Nikon Z instead of the more mirrorless-experienced Sony. Z-lenses bring a new level of quality but there still are a lot of F-mount lenses that were and still are unique, have their own personaliy, and some of those are screwdriver AF lenses never upgraded with an AF-S version (like the 200 and 70-180mm Micro Nikkors and the 105 and 135 mm DC lenses) and in some situations it might come handy to use AF with them.
Now there is better adaptibility from Nikon Screwdriver AF to Sony E than to Nikon Z and that is not what creates the mood and mental support Nikon needs from its customers. (and systems are about theoretical potentials, knowing that one can buy a say 800/6,3 has more influence than the people that actually will afford the lens -or in our case having more potential with older "lens personalities"). Given a hypothetical Nikon FTZIII adapter it will potentially be priced at least 1,5-2x the price of the FTZII and still will find its customers, especially if it is providing AI-Support as well (so it makes a difference whether you adapt a Nikon F manual focus lens to a Z camera or something else) and in consequence have the option a brighter (less noisy) viewfinder and the capability of setting the aperture both on camera and lens for a broader spectrum of lenses. Currently we have reverse engineered thirt party Beta-Versions. Nikon could do a fully funcional fully compatible (supporting AF-S lenses as well) gadget whose revenue includes indirect effects and not can be valued by the number of sold adapter pieces alone.
BTW justification is a frequently used term when it comes to photo gear but rarely the appropriate one.
-
Buying photography gear is by no means a purely rational decision but rather a lot of psychology […] the mood and mental support […] and systems are about theoretical potentials, knowing that one can buy a say 800/6,3 has more influence than the people that actually will afford the lens -or in our case having more potential with older "lens personalities"
Making products to please people who would like to see them in the catalogue, but have no intention of buying them, is not good business. Nikon has been burnt before making things people said they wanted, but then didn't buy (the FM3, Nikon 1, D500, eg). A good used D610 already costs less than the FTZ2, and an FTZ3 with AF-D support would be more expensive still. Why would someone who likes older lens personalities not use them on a digital or film SLR, when it is cheaper and for the uses for which those lens personalities were defined works just as well? For example, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the personality of the 85/1.4D for studio portraits, but for studio portraits how is a Z9 is superior to a D850? Maybe there are killer ideas to marry the personalities of older lenses with the capabilities of the Z cameras, but in seven years no one has suggested any.
-
Making products to please people who would like to see them in the catalogue, but have no intention of buying them, is not good business. Nikon has been burnt before making things people said they wanted, but then didn't buy (the FM3, Nikon 1, D500, eg). A good used D610 already costs less than the FTZ2, and an FTZ3 with AF-D support would be more expensive still. Why would someone who likes older lens personalities not use them on a digital or film SLR, when it is cheaper and for the uses for which those lens personalities were defined works just as well? For example, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the personality of the 85/1.4D for studio portraits, but for studio portraits how is a Z9 is superior to a D850? Maybe there are killer ideas to marry the personalities of older lenses with the capabilities of the Z cameras, but in seven years no one has suggested any.
Well the D500 was quite sucessful, Nikon 1 was flawy from the beginning. If the FM3A was a failure, why then did Nikon make the Df? It actually did and studied a Df2 but cancelled it. If vintage style photography gear is not an issue any more, the Zfc and Zf should have never been built, but they actually were and sold well not because they were better than the other Z Cameras but because were stylish (though inconsequent in its classical feature design). Yes the nikon F lenses were designed for DSLR cameras.These are still available (though not developed further any more) but sooner or later this will end. The second market provides backup but it will be more difficult to get them serviced. I still have more DSLRs than mirrorless cameras but its somewhat limiting to work in parallel with F and Z mount cameras and lugging around two sets of lenses. The more compatible at least in one way the better it is imho.
Historically Nikon made a lot of lenses just for the catalogue nearly nobody ever would buy (like the 6mm or 13 mm lenses) but marked the leading position as a lensmaker. One can call that being against business principles but they were more successful then, that they are now.
-
I am certainly not disagreeing that there are people who have perfectly good reasons to want an FTZ with AF-D support. All I am objecting to is the idea that Nikon's failure to provide one is (a) commercial folly, and/or (b) a ploy to force people to buy Z mount lenses they wouldn't need if there was an FTZ with AF-D support.
If you look at Roland Vink's camera database, in the US the D200 sold 233K in less than two years (all of these numbers are US only because I am not going to add up sales for all regions), the D300 sold 196K over two years, the D300S sold 175K over six years and the D500 sold 68K from 2016 to now. The D600/610 sold 270K, roughly twice D300s/D500 sales over about the same period, despite being more expensive and less capable. So, yes, the D500 sold relatively well, but the comparison with low-end FX, and the slope of the trend line for high-end DX are what is significant when considering how many of the people asking for a Z mount D500 would actually buy one in preference to a similarly-priced Z6III. Similar things happen all the time: everyone says Nikon must make DX wide primes, but when it comes to putting down the money, they buy zooms. Even someone as thoughtful as Thom Hogan does it: when he is talking about what Nikon needs to make, DX primes are on the list, but when he is suggesting appropriate lens kits, it is zooms. I don't think you can blame Nikon for paying more attention to what people actually buy than what they say they would like to be able to buy.
Nikon has sold 800K FTZ/FTZII, and about that many Z cameras every year, so the great majority of Z camera buyers do not buy a (Nikon) FTZ - ie, they use only Z lenses. The rate of FTZ sales is falling: in the three years from 2018, 445K FTZ were sold = 148K a year, while since the FTZII was introduced in late 2021 sales have been 89K a year. Some of that may be because if you bought an FTZ with the Z6 you don't buy another one with the Z6II or III, but it may also be because as more Z lenses appear and their overall superiority is generally accepted first -time camera buyers see less need for adapted lenses. I am only guessing, but maybe, when it was thinking about an AF-D capable FTZ, Nikon noticed which way the trend line for FTZ sales is pointing.
Who would buy an FTZ with AF-D support? Anyone with an AF-D lens? No. Only people with special AF-D lenses are candidates - no one is going to fork out the cost of a Z 50/1.8 to use a 50/1.8D on a Z camera. The 70-180 macro sold 18K, so people wanting to use that on a Z camera are not a significant market. The 105/2 DC and the 135/2 DC both sold 33K, which is not a lot, and another often mentioned lens, the 85/1.4 AF-D, sold 103K, and there may be other candidate special lenses. Taking all the special AF-D lenses together there might be a market approaching 200K total sales for an AF-D capable FTZ. But what is the evidence that many owners of those lenses are deeply attached to them? In particular, the AF-S 85/1.4 sold 120K, and those people had no reason relating to camera compatibility to prefer it to the 85/1.4 AF-D (it seems unlikely many were D3xxx users). The Z 85/1.8 has sold 106K, and the Z 85/1.2 and the 135/1.8 have both sold 19K, and the 85/1.4 AF-S owners weren't coerced into buying Z mount lenses, so a lot of the high-end portrait crowd seem to be OK with not using the 85/1.4 AF-D.
AF-D sales being less than half of AF-S plus Z sales is the pattern across focal lengths - eg, the 50/1.4 AF-D sold 545K, the 50/1.4 AF-S sold 725K and the Z 50/1.8 has sold 210K. Ai and Ai-S sales of 50/1.4 were 1.7M (!), so the overall proportion of 50/1.4 lenses sold able to use the FTZ/FTZII is 80%. If Nikon wanted to force people to buy Z mount lenses they didn't need why would they confine the coercion to the smallest element of the potential market?
-
Convincing numbers, Les.
On the D500, off topic though, the comparison with a similarly-priced Z6II is not the right one, I think. When the D500 was released, it was 20.9MP while the norm on FX was 24MP. It is the combination of an action camera with a higher pixel density than FX that made it for me and many other nature photographers. A true D500 equivalent today would be a 40MP DX camera with Z8 capabilities, and personally, I would preorder it, even at Z8 pricing. That said, I agree the numbers are unfortunately not high enough for Nikon for prioritize it against other bodies with a much larger sales potential.
-
Yes, I can see where Les is heading and agree with his numbers based analysis.
However the numbers for an FTZ adapter with an aperture follower, but no screw driver autofocus, would have probably stacked up.
So in setting the architecture and direction for their Z cameras, Nikon have clearly taken a position of providing a minimal solution to provide just a little bit more than their competitors in the support of legacy lenses - but only just! That said, support for AFS and G and E type F-Series lenses is pretty seamless.
In any event, I concede that smarter firmware and just the current FTZ and FTZ II adapters could I am sure still do more with manual focus lenses - that is for both AI and AiS lenses.
In the meantime, Voigtlaender have gone ahead and successfully built lenses with aperture rings and Z mount electronic connections.
In another five or so years, I suspect that mainstream Nikon users will be firmly wedded to Z-lenses and only old guys such as myself will be pondering what might have been! ;)
Convincing numbers, Les.
On the D500, off topic though, the comparison with a similarly-priced Z6II is not the right one, I think. When the D500 was released, it was 20.9MP while the norm on FX was 24MP. It is the combination of an action camera with a higher pixel density than FX that made it for me and many other nature photographers. A true D500 equivalent today would be a 40MP DX camera with Z8 capabilities, and personally, I would preorder it, even at Z8 pricing. That said, I agree the numbers are unfortunately not high enough for Nikon for prioritize it against other bodies with a much larger sales potential.
-
I understand Les Olsons point in relationship with detailed sales numbers I am not aware of. But from a pure sales logic there never should be lenses like The Plena or the Z-Noct. As Hugh was saying Nikon provided a minimal solution and I think (though I still wish Nikon would provide an Adapter like this) the time window is closing or had closed already. They should have released this together with the Zf (which is by itself a classical design lacking the final consequences in some annoying aspects). And I see it by myself that a growing number of Z-Lenses in my arsenal reduces the usage of F-mount lenses with adapter.
So for our screwdrivers matured third party adapter appear to be the last hope.
-
But from a pure sales logic there never should be lenses like The Plena or the Z-Noct.
One of the best decisions Nikon ever made was to take the opportunity of the shift to mirrorless cameras to design a new mount. The large diameter and short flange focal distance of the Z mount gives lens designers opportunities they did not have in F mount. As a result, the Z mount lenses are consistently better than their F mount predecessors - but "consistently better" doesn't make headlines. The Noct and the Plena were intended to make headlines. Nikon said that the Noct "serves as the symbol of the superior optical performance achieved with NIKKOR Z lenses. It takes advantage of the superior design flexibility made possible by the combination of the large-diameter (inner diameter of 55 mm) Z mount and 16 mm flange focal distance to realize an f/0.95 maximum aperture, the fastest in Nikon history".
Nikon also has a track record of making lenses and cameras just for engineering reasons. The Nikon Camera Chronicles FM3 story makes it very clear that the camera was made because the engineers wanted to have one more try at making the perfect manual film camera before the digital tsunami swept both the market and the engineering expertise away. The Z6 was made to see how good an electronic SLR could be. They didn't expect to sell a lot of either camera, because they made no attempt to manufacture a lot. Having made the decision to structure the Z system around optical design they were always going to see what the engineering limits were, even if the result didn't sell a lot.
-
Making products to please people who would like to see them in the catalogue, but have no intention of buying them, is not good business. Nikon has been burnt before making things people said they wanted, but then didn't buy (the FM3, Nikon 1, D500, eg). A good used D610 already costs less than the FTZ2, and an FTZ3 with AF-D support would be more expensive still. Why would someone who likes older lens personalities not use them on a digital or film SLR, when it is cheaper and for the uses for which those lens personalities were defined works just as well? For example, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the personality of the 85/1.4D for studio portraits, but for studio portraits how is a Z9 is superior to a D850? Maybe there are killer ideas to marry the personalities of older lenses with the capabilities of the Z cameras, but in seven years no one has suggested any.
Certainly the Z8/Z9 have superior autofocus on the human eye compared to the D850. Studio portraits are typically taken with flash at mid-to-small apertures while a lens like the 85/1.4 is more for available light conditions where the wide aperture makes sense in a cluttered environment. In a studio, the background is typically 100% controlled so there are no distractions to blur, and most studio lights won't even let you shoot at f/1.4 because their minimum flash energy setting wouldn't make it possible. The sweet spot apertures for the 85/1.4D are on both sides of f/2.8 I would say, and while one can of course shoot it at f/11, I wouldn't necessarily choose to do so in a studio environment with that lens. Of course if the studio lights are LEDs and not flashes, then an 85 mm f/1.4 makes sense to use, but LEDs are super limiting in the context of what has been the traditional framework of studio photography, where everything from light to environment is controlled.
Personally I use F-mount lenses on both F-mount and Z-mount cameras but it is a hassle compared to having just one mount. I bought into the Z system because it enabled silent photography which is in some situations preferable to a loud clunk from the mirror/shutter (often it doesn't matter, but sometimes does).
I would buy a Nikon-made F to Z adapter that supports autofocus with AF Nikkors because it would let me use DC Nikkors and the 200/4D Micro with AF. I've found AF with the 200 mm to be useful e.g. when photographing frogs, and also for quick acquisition of focus on static close-up subjects before making slight refinements manually. I haven't had the A/M switch break on my 200 mm. However, I can understand why Nikon would not do it even though the D780 illustrates that autofocus in LV mode (or in a mirrorless camera) is perfectly feasible with AF Nikkors even if not as sophisticated as with modern Z lenses. They often break compatibility in subtle ways to push people into buying newer gear, even though they have deceptively advertised compatibility as a major feature for many decades. It's always been a spotty record of compatibility across generations of products. It's better than nothing but if we all have to buy into the new system anyway eventually, why then make the impression that compatibility is a priority for Nikon? Either it is or is not, if compatibility is not guaranteed then advertising it can lead people to make incorrect purchase decisions that hurt them later on.
-
They often break compatibility in subtle ways to push people into buying newer gear, even though they have deceptively advertised compatibility as a major feature for many decades. It's always been a spotty record of compatibility across generations of products. It's better than nothing but if we all have to buy into the new system anyway eventually, why then make the impression that compatibility is a priority for Nikon? Either it is or is not, if compatibility is not guaranteed then advertising it can lead people to make incorrect purchase decisions that hurt them later on.
Nikon's reputation for backward compatibility rests on a single decision in the mid-80s when AF appeared and a lot more electronic communication was needed, and Nikon decided not to do what Canon did in 1987 and change its mount. Whether Nikon's was a choice to favour backward compatibility over electronics or backward compatibility was invented retrospectively as the excuse for a dumb mistake I don't know, but I suspect the latter is more likely.
I have never seen Nikon advertising that made or implied a guarantee of backward compatibility. In the 1990s, soon after Canon had spectacularly trashed backward compatibility, Nikon advertising made a point of saying that any F mount camera could use any Nikon lens made after 1977. But it was and has never been a major selling point because then, as now, it was innovation and new features that sold. Nikon's Press Release for the D1, eg, has 500 words on sensor, exposure, 4.5 fps etc, etc, and 13 on backward compatibility: "Its innate flexibility allows D1 to accept more than 80 Nikon F-mount lenses"; in the D3 press release there is not a word about backward compatibility; in the Z system press release all it says is "the new mount adapter will enable compatibility with NIKKOR F mount lenses".
In the digital era backward compatibility has been the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of the dSLRs Nikon sold - D5600, D5500, D5300, D5200, D5100, D5000, D3500, D3400, D3300, D3200, D3100, D3000, D80, D70, D60, D40, and D40X - are not AF-D compatible. On the same list of cameras, Ai lenses can be used but exposure is manual only. Backward incompatibility of new lenses with cameras even a few years old was usual, even at the high-end: E diaphragm lenses, introduced from 2014, won't work on a D1, D2, D100 or D200, made until 2007; AF-P lenses, introduced in 2016, do not AF on F6, D1 series, D2 series, D40 series, D50, D60, D70 series, D80, D90, D100, D200, in the case of the DX lenses D300 series (made until 2012), D700, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100.
-
I started in serious photography in 1971 with a Nikkormat FTN and 55mm f/3.5 Micro-NIKKOR-P and I do remember Nikon advertising that they would never abandon the F-mount. I have a vintage 1964~1966, 50mm f/1.4 NIKKOR-S and a 135mm f/3.5 NIKKOR-Q 1969~1973 with official Nikon AI conversion aperture rings so I can directly mount those legacy Nikkor lenses on my D850 and with an FTZ adapter I can mount those lenses on my Nikon Z8 and even get IBS. That's pretty good compatibility. It's not perfect but realistically it can't be.
I'm disappointed that the FTZ II and FTZ do not support AF with screwdriver AF and AF-D Nikkor but I don't think it's financially feasible for Nikon to offer an F to Z adapter with that functionality. I do think a firmware tweak could add a red to green single point focus indicator for legacy manual focus Nikkor lenses. One can hope for the latter.
So the 1959 F-mount has not been abandoned but perfect compatibility is not possible.
Dave
-
Pentax introduced the K mount in 197something, and it has retained backward and forward compatibility right up to now. And much good it did them.
When the F mount was introduced in 1959, and for years after, all it had to do was make a stable, light-tight connection between the camera and the lens. What was there to change? Of course, 44mm diameter is too small for film with a diameter of 43mm, but no one who cared about image corners used 35mm. In 1977 Nikon introduced Ai lenses, and although it was all still F mount, so what they said in 1971 was true, backward compatibility was cracked, if not broken. Notably, although Nikon made it easy and relatively inexpensive to convert most pre-Ai lenses to Ai there were pre-Ai lenses that Nikon would not convert to Ai.
SLR sales were strong in the 1970s. In particular, Canon sold a million (literally) of the AE-1, marketed with the slogan "About all you do is focus and shoot" - this was the first SLR with full auto-exposure - but manual focus turned out not to be as easy as Canon made it sound (which is why you can go to KEH today and find plenty of AE-1s in mint condition) and after AF compact cameras appeared in 1977 the SLR market tanked. Compact cameras went from 43% of the market in 1977 to 81% in 1987. In March 1983, Nikon introduced the L35AF "Pikaichi" and in 1984 its sales exceeded sales of all seven Nikon's SLRs - F3, FA, FE2, FM2, FG, FG-20 and EM - put together.
Obviously, the solution was to make SLRs with AF, but the first AF cameras failed (the F3AF, eg), because the cameras were much more expensive than the MF versions, you had to buy new AF lenses, and the AF was not very good. Then in 1985 Minolta introduced the 7000 (Maxxum in the US) with a new A (later Sony Alpha) mount that trashed backward compatibility but had AF that worked. It turned out nobody minded buying new lenses if you got good AF, and in 1986 Minolta was the SLR market leader, with more than 50% of sales. Canon decided it couldn't do competitive AF with the FD mount, and in 1987 introduced the EOS 650 with the larger and fully electronic EF mount, completely trashing backward compatibility. By 1989, 90% of SLRs sold had AF, Canon was market leader and Nikon, the only one who had not trashed backward compatibility, was in third place.
Apparently, backward compatibility hasn't always been what it is now.
-
These retrospective look backs on camera evolution have been fascinating.
Esp your Les, as I moved from Pentax K (1978) to Minolta before arriving at Nikon.
Never owned any Canon or Sony gear. And I've never been restricted by compatibility (but my needs are modest)
-
The Minolta 7000 Maxxum had Focus Priority AF so even if the lens was in focus if the camera didn't detect sharp focus you could not take your shot. I found the Minolta 7000 Maxxum's AF useless. I spent a few minutes with the 7000 Maxxum at Gayson's Camera in Glendale, CA lost all interest in the camera.
-
It is the combination of an action camera with a higher pixel density than FX that made it for me and many other nature photographers. A true D500 equivalent today would be a 40MP DX camera with Z8 capabilities, and personally, I would preorder it, even at Z8 pricing.
If you have a 400mm lens you have to be 22m from a 2m lion to fill the FX frame - get 45MP on the lion with a Z9. On DX you can be 33m away and fill the frame - with your hypothetical camera you get 45MP on the lion from further away, or at the same distance you can use a 300mm lens instead of 400mm and save some money. But with an 800mm lens and a Z9 you get 45MP on the lion at 40m. So, if you can be confident of getting within 40m and you have an 800mm lens on your Z9 you don't get a pixels-on-target advantage with DX.
That means you also have to factor in the quality and availability of very long focal length lenses and how well target recognition and tracking AF utilise them. Z has turned this upside down. The AF-S 800/5.6 cost US$16K and sold 3.8K between 2013 and now - effectively up to 2018. The Z 800/6.3 costs US$7000 and has sold 13K since 2022. In Z mount, a lot more people can afford a lot more reach.
Of course, there will always be occasions you can't get close enough, whether because the animal is too small or too elusive, but the pixels-on-target advantage of DX in the D5/D500 days has been eroded in Z mount.
-
One of the best decisions Nikon ever made was to take the opportunity of the shift to mirrorless cameras to design a new mount. The large diameter and short flange focal distance of the Z mount gives lens designers opportunities they did not have in F mount. As a result, the Z mount lenses are consistently better than their F mount predecessors - but "consistently better" doesn't make headlines. The Noct and the Plena were intended to make headlines. Nikon said that the Noct "serves as the symbol of the superior optical performance achieved with NIKKOR Z lenses. It takes advantage of the superior design flexibility made possible by the combination of the large-diameter (inner diameter of 55 mm) Z mount and 16 mm flange focal distance to realize an f/0.95 maximum aperture, the fastest in Nikon history".
Nikon indeed made a good decision with the widest bayonet and the shortest flange distance. Now every lens can be adapted to a Z Camera and Z lenses only used for
The downside is that adapted F-mount lenses handle more unbalanced to handle than on an F-mount Camera. Most of the Z lenses and even the wideangle lenses (except the few pancakes) are rather long and bulky.
Regarding Z-mount Nikon did not unleash the full potential so far. Given the Size of the Noct and the fact that there are much smaller f/0,95 a lens of the size and weight of the Z-Noct could as well be f/0,7. The potential of higher speed lenses manifested (besides Noct and Plena) only in the 35 and 85 mm f/1,2 up to now.
Nikon also has a track record of making lenses and cameras just for engineering reasons. The Nikon Camera Chronicles FM3 story makes it very clear that the camera was made because the engineers wanted to have one more try at making the perfect manual film camera before the digital tsunami swept both the market and the engineering expertise away. The Z6 was made to see how good an electronic SLR could be. They didn't expect to sell a lot of either camera, because they made no attempt to manufacture a lot. Having made the decision to structure the Z system around optical design they were always going to see what the engineering limits were, even if the result didn't sell a lot.
You described now very well that publicity is important and there is something like detour profitability. So there are pieces of gear that do not sell in numbers but make users dream, make them more attuned to Nikon, make them believe they belong to the communitiy of thoseusing the best camera system and such like. So now coming back to our desired advanced FTZ adapter Nikon could have made anengineering marvel out of it and make headline and show that they uncomparably support their long-term users and value the Nikon gear they have bought in the past. It wont address the mass market I would certainly buy one or two of those and I certainly would not be alone.
BTW: You did write Z6 but mean the F6 or D6 I guess.
-
Nikon's reputation for backward compatibility rests on a single decision in the mid-80s when AF appeared and a lot more electronic communication was needed, and Nikon decided not to do what Canon did in 1987 and change its mount. Whether Nikon's was a choice to favour backward compatibility over electronics or backward compatibility was invented retrospectively as the excuse for a dumb mistake I don't know, but I suspect the latter is more likely.
I have never seen Nikon advertising that made or implied a guarantee of backward compatibility. In the 1990s, soon after Canon had spectacularly trashed backward compatibility, Nikon advertising made a point of saying that any F mount camera could use any Nikon lens made after 1977. But it was and has never been a major selling point because then, as now, it was innovation and new features that sold. Nikon's Press Release for the D1, eg, has 500 words on sensor, exposure, 4.5 fps etc, etc, and 13 on backward compatibility: "Its innate flexibility allows D1 to accept more than 80 Nikon F-mount lenses"; in the D3 press release there is not a word about backward compatibility; in the Z system press release all it says is "the new mount adapter will enable compatibility with NIKKOR F mount lenses".
In the digital era backward compatibility has been the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of the dSLRs Nikon sold - D5600, D5500, D5300, D5200, D5100, D5000, D3500, D3400, D3300, D3200, D3100, D3000, D80, D70, D60, D40, and D40X - are not AF-D compatible. On the same list of cameras, Ai lenses can be used but exposure is manual only. Backward incompatibility of new lenses with cameras even a few years old was usual, even at the high-end: E diaphragm lenses, introduced from 2014, won't work on a D1, D2, D100 or D200, made until 2007; AF-P lenses, introduced in 2016, do not AF on F6, D1 series, D2 series, D40 series, D50, D60, D70 series, D80, D90, D100, D200, in the case of the DX lenses D300 series (made until 2012), D700, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100.
Regarding backward compatibility Nikon made the decision to keep its mount and seemed to be right then as Canon was initially struggling with EOS mount and the ultrasonic motors. Here it seemed to offer a smoother transition to support both in Camera and in lens AF-motors like Nikon. Tide changed when F4 still hat one AF centerfield and even more important when it took Nikon years to provide fast Supertele lenses (and still AF-I fist) at a time when Canon provided IS (a technology where Nikon originally was pioneer). These years in the late 1980s were the times when Nikon lost the pros (and did not regain this leading position until now. Nikon never was leading in overall sales, always had the third position behind Minolta and Canon there. Becoming second in the early digital SLR era and after Minolta has faded away was a new situation.
Coming back to compatibility Nikon keeping the bayonet saw itself forced to make two vast changes (G lenses and then E-lenses) to finally bring communication to fully electronic which in hindsight might lead to the thought that a radical change might have been favorable (finally Canon had to change mount again with mirrorless and so did Nikon)
You described the lack of compatibility throughout all these changes, especially with beginners models, but for a long period of time when you bought in high-end cameras you got more (but still notunleashing the full potential) support. BTW when G-type lenses were announced Nikon pretended that this is not a general change but just another option for cheap beginners lenses - until the release 70-200/2,8 showed that Nikon in fact had other aims.
-
More useful info about "reach"
& different ways to achieve it - thank you Les
Z has turned this upside down. .... The Z 800/6.3 costs US$7000 and has sold 13K since 2022.
In Z mount, a lot more people can afford a lot more reach.
Well, yes it's more affordable.
I would probably spend $7,000 differently though
If you compare the portability, weight & size of a D500 plus equivalent lens, it would probably cost less and be more portable out in the field than this 800mm and a Z8.
Of course, i appreciate that this thread has morphed into a discussion on whether Nikon has given us better options nowadays, compared to those from design decisions made decades ago.
Personally I'd be happy with a "Z" equivalent of a D500
-
Personally I'd be happy with a "Z" equivalent of a D500
Unless a Z replacement for the D500 was substantially less expensive than the Z8 the Z8 makes an excellent replacement for the D500 as well as the D850.
At this point in time I see no advantage in DX as one can always crop an FX NEF deeply and if shooting JPG(s) where DX is desired the camera can be switched to DX capture mode.
If a Z replacement for the D500 was smaller than the Z8 the controls and function buttons would suffer.
Dave
-
More useful info about "reach"
& different ways to achieve it - thank you Les
Well, yes it's more affordable.
I would probably spend $7,000 differently though
If you compare the portability, weight & size of a D500 plus equivalent lens, it would probably cost less and be more portable out in the field than this 800mm and a Z8.
Of course, i appreciate that this thread has morphed into a discussion on whether Nikon has given us better options nowadays, compared to those from design decisions made decades ago.
Personally I'd be happy with a "Z" equivalent of a D500
Nikon was in a very difficult economic situation a few years ago and the Z-System was late, so we profit now from a very cheap 800/6,3 lens and dont forget the Z9 was offered 1000 Euro cheaper than the D6.
I was a heavy D500 user and frequently preferred it over the D850 (switched to DX mode when needed with a unique viefwinder surround visibility not available in the D6). One of the advantages of the D500 was the larger area of the image that was covered by the AF sensor as well. With the Z-System the situation has changed a bit. I can use Z9 and Z8 in FX/DX switch mode (the viewfinder adapts automatically which has pros and cons) and I am not sure whether I would buy a Z500 since its advantages are more limited. For me it would depend whether it is smaller and more ligthweight than the Z8 but share its control-layout and funcionality (like the ability to set EV values in full stops). A control layout like the Z6/7 series is a reason for exclusion (like it was the case with the Z6III).
i appreciate the discussion as well but I am coming back that an adapter like described would be good for us and Nikons image, would most likely never happen (especially when Nikon is facing losses again and the market is shrinking) but this is not arguable on a pure rational level.
-
So there are pieces of gear that do not sell in numbers but make users dream, make them more attuned to Nikon, make them believe they belong to the communitiy of thoseusing the best camera system and such like. So now coming back to our desired advanced FTZ adapter Nikon could have made anengineering marvel out of it and make headline and show that they uncomparably support their long-term users and value the Nikon gear they have bought in the past. It wont address the mass market I would certainly buy one or two of those and I certainly would not be alone.
BTW: You did write Z6 but mean the F6 or D6 I guess.
F6.
I would certainly applaud Nikon for making an engineering marvel regardless of its sales potential - not being either a stockholder or employee of Nikon it does not bother me if they lose a million or two.
However, if demonstrating support for long-term users is what is needed for Nikon's brand, an AF-D capable FTZ won't do it. The reason is that there are two issues for the usability of products more than a few years old: one, less important, is backward compatibility, and the other, more important, is spare parts availability. An AF-D capable FTZ won't help when the lens you bought to use it with develops a fault and can't be repaired. What would demonstrate a genuine commitment to long-term users is long-term spare parts availability.
-
Les - kudos to you - so very well said. I totally agree.
(And please, if I may add to your remarks, making superior plastic parts to replace those that crack and fail.)
..........................., more important, is spare parts availability.
An AF-D capable FTZ won't help when the lens you bought to use it with develops a fault and can't be repaired.
What would demonstrate a genuine commitment to long-term users is long-term spare parts availability.
-
I would certainly applaud Nikon for making an engineering marvel regardless of its sales potential - not being either a stockholder or employee of Nikon it does not bother me if they lose a million or two.
However, if demonstrating support for long-term users is what is needed for Nikon's brand, an AF-D capable FTZ won't do it. The reason is that there are two issues for the usability of products more than a few years old: one, less important, is backward compatibility, and the other, more important, is spare parts availability. An AF-D capable FTZ won't help when the lens you bought to use it with develops a fault and can't be repaired. What would demonstrate a genuine commitment to long-term users is long-term spare parts availability.
One does not exclude the other but I second that Nikon could and should improve the servicability of their products and should have a look on Leica in this aspect. What I find especially annoying is that expthe ensive lenses like the 200-400/4 VR have some design flaws causing higher probability to fail and are on the same hand unservicable.
-
What would demonstrate a genuine commitment to long-term users is long-term spare parts availability.
There is a story that is probably true. This came from an independent camera repairman and long time friend. One day at Nikon USA repair technicians were instructed to take out a hammer and destroy all their spare Nikon F2 parts. The apparent purpose was to push sales of new Nikon F3.
Dave
-
A very interesting discussion. Personally, the FTZ adapter that I think Nikon (or someone else) should make is one that supports AI metering. If the lens data has been set into the camera, an AI FTZ adaptor would allow the lens aperture to show in the viewfinder and to be recorded in EXIF data. I think that would be a very useful and desirable feature. I am sure there are plenty of photographers with legacy AI, AIS, and old AF lenses (including AF lenses which don't AF any more) who still like to use them on their Z cameras. The current lack of viewfinder information means you would constantly have to take your eye away from the viewfinder and over the top of the camera to see if the aperture has been set correctly, or turn the aperture ring to max and then count the clicks until the required aperture has been set, which slows down the picture taking process. This could mean you risk shoot at the wrong aperture or lose the shot. Having the shooting aperture in the EXIF data is also useful when reviewing images later.
An AI FTZ adapter would be much simpler and more robust than one which supports screwdrive AF, although more complex than the current adaptor. Not having AF with legacy lenses would not bother me so much as Z cameras have good tools such as focus peaking, increasing magnification, and IBIS which allow the photographer to focus quickly and accurately.
-
There is a story that is probably true. This came from an independent camera repairman and long time friend. One day at Nikon USA repair technicians were instructed to take out a hammer and destroy all their spare Nikon F2 parts. The apparent purpose was to push sales of new Nikon F3(s).
Dave
Of course I don't know if thats true and if so if it is the only case. The Situation where the F3 followed the F2 was unique as there reportedly was no overlap, the F2 was de-listed out immidiately (whereas the F3 stayed in the catalogue longer than the F4 and certainly not because this model was that superior). The mechanical F2 was seen as superior then by many photographers and electronics appeared not as trustworthy at that time, so Nikon had more need to push customers than ever before and afterwards. The improvements were little and the new centerweighted 80/20 ratio was not liked by everyone.
-
A very interesting discussion. Personally, the FTZ adapter that I think Nikon (or someone else) should make is one that supports AI metering. If the lens data has been set into the camera, an AI FTZ adaptor would allow the lens aperture to show in the viewfinder and to be recorded in EXIF data. I think that would be a very useful and desirable feature. I am sure there are plenty of photographers with legacy AI, AIS, and old AF lenses (including AF lenses which don't AF any more) who still like to use them on their Z cameras. The current lack of viewfinder information means you would constantly have to take your eye away from the viewfinder and over the top of the camera to see if the aperture has been set correctly, or turn the aperture ring to max and then count the clicks until the required aperture has been set, which slows down the picture taking process. This could mean you risk shoot at the wrong aperture or lose the shot. Having the shooting aperture in the EXIF data is also useful when reviewing images later.
An AI FTZ adapter would be much simpler and more robust than one which supports screwdrive AF, although more complex than the current adaptor. Not having AF with legacy lenses would not bother me so much as Z cameras have good tools such as focus peaking, increasing magnification, and IBIS which allow the photographer to focus quickly and accurately.
When Canon released the RF system they provided three EF/RF adapters, the standard, one with ring and one with filter holder. I have nothing against more NIKON FTZ versions. What I actually would prefer is one adapter that provides AF-S and screwdriver support plus AI (and Firmware updates that provide Aperture ring usability on the camera side also with CPU-lenses) and AI-S detection. Nothing against a simpler, cheaper adapter for AI (S) alone.
-
Yes, Canon has done a better job here. Even a future FTZ adapter with aperture ring support would be nice.
When Canon released the RF system they provided three EF/RF adapters, the standard, one with ring and one with filter holder. I have nothing against more NIKON FTZ versions. What I actually would prefer is one adapter that provides AF-S and screwdriver support plus AI (and Firmware updates that provide Aperture ring usability on the camera side also with CPU-lenses) and AI-S detection. Nothing against a simpler, cheaper adapter for AI (S) alone.
-
Great comments guys
... I see no advantage in DX as one can always crop an FX NEF deeply .
I've been down this path long ago David, comparing cropped D800 output to my then D300
(not enough to make me change even then)
Thanks MILLIREHM, I agree with you.
Plus the point is now moot as Nikon seem to have left the HQ DX concept for good.
My requirements are probably different from many of you as I shoot many more telephoto subjects than wideangle.
There's an inevitable event on the horizon that may possibly fund a move to Z bodies and lenses.
Meanwhile, back to adapters :)
-
One more minor item for the wish list for a feature of an FTZ III. This is a feature that is not available to lenses without a CPU. FV lock (Flash Value) does not function on the Z8 with FTZ and AIS Nikkors.
The FV Lock fires an open flash that the camera uses to determines the flash exposure. It's toggle on, toggle off. Press to measure and lock the flash exposure; press a second time to release the flash exposure.
What this does for me is takes care of the say cheese smile of a first shot. Almost all subjects relax and give a natural smile after the measurement open flash. Typically I take a first and second shot. The subjects might be guests at a reception or children, a record for them and their parents when they are older. There is also the advantage if two or maybe three shots are taken the post processing will be almost identical for each shot in a series. Sometimes guess at a reception will clown for the camera so a series might be a half dozen.
The distance to the subject must remain the same. What I found with my Z8 and an SB-400 is the FV Lock works with AF-S G and AF-D Nikkors but not AIS. I'm not sure why FV Lock does not function with an FTZ mounted AIS lens but it doesn't.
Dave
-
If you have a 400mm lens you have to be 22m from a 2m lion to fill the FX frame - get 45MP on the lion with a Z9. On DX you can be 33m away and fill the frame - with your hypothetical camera you get 45MP on the lion from further away, or at the same distance you can use a 300mm lens instead of 400mm and save some money. But with an 800mm lens and a Z9 you get 45MP on the lion at 40m. So, if you can be confident of getting within 40m and you have an 800mm lens on your Z9 you don't get a pixels-on-target advantage with DX.
That means you also have to factor in the quality and availability of very long focal length lenses and how well target recognition and tracking AF utilise them. Z has turned this upside down. The AF-S 800/5.6 cost US$16K and sold 3.8K between 2013 and now - effectively up to 2018. The Z 800/6.3 costs US$7000 and has sold 13K since 2022. In Z mount, a lot more people can afford a lot more reach.
Of course, there will always be occasions you can't get close enough, whether because the animal is too small or too elusive, but the pixels-on-target advantage of DX in the D5/D500 days has been eroded in Z mount.
This happened already in F mount with the D850 which could achieve what you describe, and it seems to have outsold the D500 although the latter was less expensive. However, this is a choice that Nikon is making and it's not inevitable. Fuji, for example, is offering 26MP stacked and 40 MP non-stacked APS-C sensors in their cameras which would give some pixels per subject advantage in reach-limited situations over the Z8/Z9. Nikon's solution has been to offer a range of lighter-weight high-quality telephotos including the 400/4.5, 600/6.3, and 800/6.3 as well as the slightly more consumer-oriented 180-600/5.6-6.3. These should give an FX user enough reach in most practical situations, and the aperture of those lenses is intermediate which makes them more portable and affordable than the ultra high-end fast superteles which were for a long time the only options for long-lens photography in the autofocus DSLR era. Thus what was previously achieved with a less expensive DX camera body, can now be achieved by combining an arguably more expensive FX body with a less expensive, but still powerful lens, and an added advantage is that because of the larger field of view and high pixel density of the Z8/Z9, one has more room for post exposure flexibility in framing, though this comes with a smaller subject in the frame in some cases. But one cannot have everything, I guess. One possibility would be for Nikon to implement a framing crop mode which would entail a DX framed viewfinder but the files would contain the full FX data, enabling the subject to be seen and focused on more easily in the center of the frame but then the backup FX frame would be available if needed to avoid wing clips etc. But I guess this would be a too niche use to actually implement.
I think the main issue of making a Z mount equivalent to the D500 is that the fast sensor readout enabling silent photography at high fps and with minimal rolling shutter distortion necessitates an expensive sensor and Nikon might not end up making a profit from such development just for the high end DX crowd. As Fuji has shown, the users might have to choose from fast readout (in fact in their case not that fast compared to the Z8/Z9 in still photography) expensive DX camera with only slightly higher pixel density (26 MP) than the Z8/Z9 and a slow read speed high-resolution high pixel density 40 MP model which would necessitate the continued use of the mechanical shutter for action subjects. What people who are asking for a Z D500 equivalent really want is a substantially higher pixel density sensor with similar read times as the Z8/Z9 and it could end up costing as much as the Z8 easily, and still it would be a niche camera since wide angles would be negatively affected and fast standard zooms would need to be redesigned for DX Z for such camera models to get enough user base beyond the bird photography niche.
The popularity of the 800/6.3 is in line with the other PF lenses and less to do with the Z mount itself; Nikon's F-mount PF lenses were also hugely popular. Nikon is making effective use of PF technology to make long primes more affordable but still good in image quality. Though looking at MTF tests the older AF-S 800/5.6 beats the 800/6.3 PF, so one should not really think that these lenses are truly equivalent. In photographylife's MTF tests the 800/6.3 wide open center has imatest score of 2646 vs. the 800/5.6 at f/5.6 gives 3151. I totally get that the newer lens is a lot easier to use and more practical. I have noticed that in the Finnish Nature Photographer of the Year competition in 2025, 800 mm lenses were used by many, and this is definitely something that was not common in the past.
-
I think the main issue of making a Z mount equivalent to the D500 is that the fast sensor readout enabling silent photography at high fps and with minimal rolling shutter distortion necessitates an expensive sensor and Nikon might not end up making a profit from such development just for the high end DX crowd. [...] What people who are asking for a Z D500 equivalent really want is a substantially higher pixel density sensor with similar read times as the Z8/Z9 and it could end up costing as much as the Z8 easily, and still it would be a niche camera since wide angles would be negatively affected and fast standard zooms would need to be redesigned for DX Z for such camera models to get enough user base beyond the bird photography niche.
Nikon will at some point have to develop a new DX sensor - "a" meaning there will only be one, because they will need to use it across the DX range and for a long time, in order to recoup the development costs. If that was a 45MP DX sensor it could simply go straight into the Z8II.
However ... the D500 suffered because although it did offer higher pixel-density versus the 20MP D5 and D6, it did not versus the 45MP D850 when that appeared only a year later, and although a (say) 45MP DX sensor has higher pixel-density than the current Z8 and Z9, it also would suffer if later iterations of the Z8/9 had 80MP or 100MP (DX crops of 35 and 44MP). So a lot will depend on how Nikon expects the Z8/9 to evolve over the next couple of iterations.
The need to use the sensor across the DX range means cost and suitability for video are likely to be key factors, especially if the predictions of a DX - ie, less expensive - counterpart to the ZR in 2026 are correct. The RED Komodo/Komodo-X use a 20MP Super 35 (27 x 14mm) sensor to do 6K at 40/80 fps, and cost $3000 and $7000, so a 24MP partially stacked DX sensor giving 6K at 60 fps would match well.
-
Nikon will at some point have to develop a new DX sensor - "a" meaning there will only be one, because they will need to use it across the DX range and for a long time, in order to recoup the development costs. If that was a 45MP DX sensor it could simply go straight into the Z8II.
However ... the D500 suffered because although it did offer higher pixel-density versus the 20MP D5 and D6, it did not versus the 45MP D850 when that appeared only a year later, and although a (say) 45MP DX sensor has higher pixel-density than the current Z8 and Z9, it also would suffer if later iterations of the Z8/9 had 80MP or 100MP (DX crops of 35 and 44MP). So a lot will depend on how Nikon expects the Z8/9 to evolve over the next couple of iterations.
The need to use the sensor across the DX range means cost and suitability for video are likely to be key factors, especially if the predictions of a DX - ie, less expensive - counterpart to the ZR in 2026 are correct. The RED Komodo/Komodo-X use a 20MP Super 35 (27 x 14mm) sensor to do 6K at 40/80 fps, and cost $3000 and $7000, so a 24MP partially stacked DX sensor giving 6K at 60 fps would match well.
I don't think that the entry-level DX cameras will be able to use the same sensor as a proposed high-end Z70 or Z90 (D500 equivalent mirrorless "pro DX" camera). This is because the D500 is a high fps camera with high-end AF and a lot of the users expect top action photography performance which necessitates the use of a sensor with fast readout. Such a sensor would too expensive to use on cameras like the Z30, Z50 series etc. Therefore there will need to be (1) sensors that are affordable to keep camera prices low for beginners and people from less rich countries, and then if (2) a high-end sensor is needed for action photography then it would likely not satisfy the need for high pixel count. (3) A sensor that would give more detail for wildlife and bird photographers in situations where fast action is not a priority would then be the third category, and possible (4) video-optimized sensors fourth. I don't think Nikon sells enough cameras to pay for the development of all these in the DX format in addition to their FX sensors. Nikon's partially stacked Z6III/ZR FX sensor is reported to have a shadow flickering issue which was only partially resolved in a firmware update. It's also reported to produce soft h.265 log footage in the ZR (possibly due to the camera being too small to effectively deal with the heat from more compressed encodings with noise reduction for the shadows). I think Nikon needs to sort these issues out if they want to produce a tiny DX Z camera with a video priority. A Komodo sensor probably requires active cooling and a large chassis to produce the expected performance and these may be incompatible with the concept of a ZR-style camera. I think Nikon should update the current 20 MP DX sensor at some point with something that is both faster and a little higher resolution and perhaps the influencer and youtuber crowd can pay for the development of such a sensor. But it will not likely satisfy bird photographers looking for a D500 equivalent mirrorless camera because of the so many different requirements of these different user groups.
-
I have one of these adapters for my Z cameras so I can use my older AF lenses.
The first release firmware v1.1 was not very good and only one of the 8 lenses I tested worked satisfactorily. I would not have recommended it to someone, but like most things in life 'Persistence pays'.
Latest v1.2 firmware sorted out the slightly missed focus problems I had previously and the lenses I tested now seem to focus well enough.
OK the purists will say....
It does not focus as fast as my AfS or Z lenses...
Really, did you expect a 15-20 year old lens to beat the last year model?
Sorry get real, it is about using the old optics to get a different image rather than the super sharp, contrasty clinical results from the latest lenses.
If you want then consider the FA-FZ1 as an expensive filter!
-
A very interesting discussion. Personally, the FTZ adapter that I think Nikon (or someone else) should make is one that supports AI metering. If the lens data has been set into the camera, an AI FTZ adaptor would allow the lens aperture to show in the viewfinder and to be recorded in EXIF data. I think that would be a very useful and desirable feature. I am sure there are plenty of photographers with legacy AI, AIS, and old AF lenses (including AF lenses which don't AF any more) who still like to use them on their Z cameras. The current lack of viewfinder information means you would constantly have to take your eye away from the viewfinder and over the top of the camera to see if the aperture has been set correctly, or turn the aperture ring to max and then count the clicks until the required aperture has been set, which slows down the picture taking process. This could mean you risk shoot at the wrong aperture or lose the shot. Having the shooting aperture in the EXIF data is also useful when reviewing images later.
An AI FTZ adapter would be much simpler and more robust than one which supports screwdrive AF, although more complex than the current adaptor. Not having AF with legacy lenses would not bother me so much as Z cameras have good tools such as focus peaking, increasing magnification, and IBIS which allow the photographer to focus quickly and accurately.
I believe that MonsterAdapter is building what they call a model LA-FZ11 adapter that might be of interest to you. There seem to be rumours that it will make Ai lenses AF as well but this would be of little interest to me as my only non-AF lenses in the AI range is the 105mm f1.8 lens and 50mm f1.2.
Personally the LA-FZ1 that I have for my AF lenses works well enough for me on my Z cameras.